Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Badami (1786)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 03:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Badami (1786)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Y. N. Deodhar is not WP:RS/WP:HISTRS, nor WP:SCHOLARSHIP, they are not a historian and are thus an unreliable source. Google scholar wields no results; [1]

Sanish Nandakumar is not a historian, and has a B.S in economics, they are in no way scholarship, especially only having made one book. - No results on google scholar: [2]

This page is poorly created with a spam link of sources in each paragraph.

The other sources provide little but a passing mention. [3] Noorullah (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Noorullah (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Y.N. Deodhar is a M.A. and also a PHD in history which is mentioned in the source used in the article itself. [4] and Another source calls Y. N. Deodhar an “veteran historian” [5]. Also your search results doesn't even mentions the name of "Y. N. Deodhar".

Y. N. Deodhar's book [6] along with these two reliable sources [7] (page no 52-53), [8] (page no 178-179) clearly gives significant coverage to the event. GroovyGrinster^{Talk With Me} 13:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y.N Deodhar is not cited as having a PHD in history, he's not even on google scholars, which is what you pointed out for me by saying "your search results doesn't mention the name", yes, that's the point, he's not a scholar cited on google scholars.

And I'm sorry but "Venkatesh Rangan" is not a historian, he's an author. [9]

Deodhar, already unreliable as aforementioned, his book provides little insight. The two other sources you cited, are already responded towards, Govind is not a historian. Noorullah (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move on from Google Scholars. I'm not gonna talk about Y. N. Deodhar again because I've already provided an source which literally calls Y. N. Deodhar an “Veteran historian”.

Although Venkatesh Rangan mentions Y. N. Deodhar as a historian, I've no idea that why does it matter that Venkatesh Rangan is a historian or not because Venkatesh Rangan's book isn't even used anywhere in the article that's totally irrelevant in the AfD (WP:AADP).

Even the Uttarakhand Open University here [10] (page no 239) mentions Y. N. Deodhar as a historian.

Govind Sakharam Sardesai is a famous historian,[11] there is literally a Wikipedia article on him (Govind Sakharam Sardesai) which also calls him a historian. GroovyGrinster^{Talk With Me} 10:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The book written by Govind is outdated per WP:RAJ(1946). Couldn’t find much info about Deodhar other than the links you’ve showed. I guess he’s okay based on what I’m reading, but if that’s the only reliable source that mentions this, then I’m not sure it requires its own separate article.

“Consequent upon the capture of Badami, the strong fort of Bhadur Band capitulated to the Marathas and Haripant proceeded to capture copal, another fort about four miles distant.” There’s only one line that mentions this battle in Deodhars book, and there are no other details other than “it was captured”. This tells me that this event lacks Wikipedia:Notability, which means it doesn’t warrant its own article if it’s based on one line from a book. The other sources don’t seem reliable or fall under WP:RAJ. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

As per explanation given by @GroovyGrinster the article is notable and sources provided are WP:RS giving significant coverage of this Siege even if we don't consider YN Deodhar the other two i.e Sen, Sailendra Nath [12] (page no 52-53) and Sardesai Govind Sakaram [13] (page no 178-179) clearly gives significant coverage to the event.

Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 07:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Govind is WP:RAJ. His book was written in 1946. Which makes it outdated. Deodhar makes a small mention of Badami being captured but doesn’t mention a siege or any other details beyond that. As I’ve mentioned before, this event lacks notability, and I already pointed out many of the issues within this article. Someguywhosbored (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:

Not convinced that this needs its own article. Only reliable source here is from Deodhar and it’s one line about it being captured, with no other extra details or information(see context above). In fact it doesn’t even mention a siege, only that the town was captured. This article lacks Wikipedia:Notability. Govinds book appears to fall under WP:RAJ which makes it an unsuitable addition for any article. The other sources don’t appear to be reliable either per noorullah. One throwaway line/passing mention of this event doesn’t warrant a separate article.

Edit: I’m beginning to think that WP:SYNTH and WP:OR is at play here. How did the user who wrote this article get all this information from one line in Deodhars book? I don’t see how he got the numbers in the info box, nor how he managed to fill an entire article based on a throwaway line. Non of the information in the body for example seem to directly relate to the capture of Badami. There’s no mention of any of that in regards to Deodhars book. So again, there’s barely any information about the CAPTURE(not siege) of Badami in the sources provided. Most of this article employs original research and synth. Even the title is OR, there was no battle. Majority of the information here is falsified. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Capture/Siege of Badami is given significant coverage in these two sources [14] (page no- 53-54), [15] (page no- 178-179). This source mentions this conflict as Siege of Badami in the page number 52 [16].

WP:RAJ doesn't apply to Govind Sakharam Sardesai's Book because it only applies to caste related stuff. Hence Govind Sakharam Sardesai's Book is a WP:RS, Also WP:RAJ isn't a policies or guidelines of Wikipedia, it's only an Essay. And All of the sources pass WP:RS, Can you explain that how according to you they aren't reliable? GroovyGrinster^{Talk With Me} 14:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why you’d assume that it only applies to caste related topics but that’s not the case. This has been discussed many times in the past especially on RSN, but typically, all sources that fall under the raj era are not seen as reliable. While the essay written by sitush focuses on caste, most of the same issues mentioned there apply to all raj era historians.

And btw, Govind was already picked apart in RSN for the same reasons I mentioned(WP:RAJ), it’s an outdated source.

“Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 291#Reliability of Govind Sakharam Sardesai

“The sources I have seen suggest that it was first published in 1928, which makes it a bit dated, I have no opinion on the accuracy of the source though. “

“I see to recall being informed that prior discussions has found any source published under the Raj was automatically not an RS”

Anything that was written during the raj era is outdated and thus not RS. Sitush can clarify this further for you if you’d like to ask him, as he’s already discussed this detail many times in the past.

“Also WP:RAJ isn't a policies or guidelines of Wikipedia, it's only an Essay”

It’s an essay written by one of the most prolific writers of Indian historical topics on Wikipedia. Sitush is a content expert. And this is something that has generally been accepted by the community. Raj era sources are typically almost always viable for removal.

Furthermore, the point of the essay was to let the readers know that RAJ era sources are unreliable and outdated. So even if this isn’t a policy(which is irrelevant, this issue was discussed multiple times), WP:RS still exists. We are looking for high quality sources on wikipedia, not outdated work from the raj era. And as I’ve clarified, Govinds work has already been picked apart by RSN.

“Can you explain that how according to you they aren't reliable”

well I should clarify what I actually meant. look at this source for example https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.69209/page/n56/mode/1up

it actually doesn’t seem unreliable based on what I’ve read, so this source is fine but where is the siege of Badami mentioned? I can’t find the quote in the page numbers cited. It seems that this was likely mistakenly added in. So we can’t use this source for information it doesn’t even have. Now as for the final source

https://archive.org/details/dli.csl.7298/mode/1up

There is no page number cited so I can’t even find where it mentions Badami. Furthermore I can’t find any info about the authors credentials, but even if he was reliable, where has he written about the the siege of Badami?

it seems to me that out of all these sources, only one of them mentions anything about Badami. Not that there was a siege mind you. Deodhar makes a passing mention of the town being captured and that’s it. There is no other details. So again, why is this a separate article? After checking all the sources, I realized this article is far more problematic than initially anticipated. The text doesn’t even correspond with what’s written in the sources cited. Someguywhosbored (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source assessment by one of our more experienced editors would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Someguywhosbored. Full of unverifiable and unreliable claims. Mccapra (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per someguywhosbored. No need for a separate article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.